Conscious "events"

PF fell_spamtrap_in at
Wed Jun 12 01:22:34 EST 2002

"Mark Horn" <rama at> wrote in message
news:ae5lvo$aom$0 at
> I take a particularly rigorous path in approaching the concept of
> consciousness; I'll share below a brief abstract of my current
> speculative position.
> -----
> The Riemann Observer; Consciousness Coupled to Curvature
> I believe that the leap of imagination required to grasp the concept of
> "physical consciousness," is a leap made in two conceptual stages; the
> first requires that we understand "conscious events" in a 4-dimensional
> spacetime, as comprising a minimum of two events, defined with no metric
> imposed.  For the present, we'll call one event "detection," and the
> other "perception."
> The second, and most important stage, demands that we understand that
> the relative accelerations of the seperation between the geodesics
> corresponding to arbitrary detection and perception events, are not
> governed by the density of mass-energy, p.  We must instead consider
> relative acceleration as being governed by the Riemann curvature of
> spacetime [Misner, Thorne and Wheeler, 1973].
> As a consequence of this reasoning, I argue that a "conscious event"
> should be defined as an object whose geometry is the interval between a
> "detection event" and a "perceptual event."  Curvature is characterized
> by the Riemann curvature tensor, which is defined by the relative
> acceleration of nearby geodesics.  In the Newtonian limit (i.e., weak
> gravitational fields, low velocities and small pressures), Riemann can
> be given as,
> R = G,
> where G is the Einstein tensor.
> It follows from this that consciousness can be defined as changes in the
> interval geometry; specifically, the anisotropic component of curvature
> leftover from conscious events, propogated according to the Einstein
> field equation, which, in the absence of all coordinates, can be given
> in the limit as,
> G = 8(pi)T = 0 = no matter, 0 curvature;
> G = 8(pi)T = 4(pi)p = matter, curvature <> 0,
> where T is the stress-energy tensor, and p is the density of
> mass-energy.

In view of that consciousness is (or seems to be) the most ill-defined of
any commonly kept in mind and debated concept, you might be well of
referring to your idea as something like a 'cosmological (spacetime
topological) coordinates correlate of consciousness'.

Thereby you might avoid adding to the confusion. After all, the
interpretation of consciousness that is to us most relevant and of most
primary importance is inevitably a simple neuropsychophysiological one.

However, your interpretation (or one closely similar to it) would go towards
reinforcing the peripheral (or philosophically complementary) frame for this
simple neuropsychophysiological explanation for "consciousness".

(By the way, at the other end of this 'philosophical complementarity' there
are some evolution theoretical considerations.)

Peter F

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list